Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

No, I'm not. But it's not the ".dev" TLD that makes the branding. You're making the assumption that having a ".dev" domain registered to yourself will transform into that branding without any evidence, and against all logic.

Tell that to every good developer who wasn't hired because some shitty developer with an MSDN certification and no experience got hired instead.

So what? Idiot hiring managers will do what they do, and there's a huge list of stupid reasons why they might refuse to hire somebody. The availability of.dev domains doesn't make any difference in that respect -- anyone who would make a decision based on something that moronic would just find some other stupid reason to hire the poor candidate.

At first it's not going to be considered an exclusive requirement that good developers have.dev, but eventually, as the.dev becomes a cognitive shortcut for "good developer" people will start thinking that those without.dev are in some way suspect - after all, if they were that good, why wouldn't they have a.dev?

If Google was capable of doing this, then there would already be a perception that all good developers are Google developers. And that isn't anywhere close to true.

This isn't just speculation, either - the same thing can be seen in the computer world today (or at least recently) with the "XXX Certification" nonsense, be it A+ / MSDN / whatever. I've seen job hiring requirements that require certifications that are pointless to the job, or that focus more on certifications than actual job experience or ability.

Nobody but idiot managers think that not having a particular certification means that someone is a bad developer. This isn't a problem where general perception is concerned.

I really can't see any reason why this is any "worse" than a single entity owning, say, http://developer.com/. Domain names really aren't like real estate -- the namespace is so big that you're always going to be able to find an alternative.

If there's some group organization that feels strongly that there should be a TLD reserved for developers, then they should go ahead and register one.

That no non-Google developer can register a.dev is akin to saying that if you don't work for Google you're not really a developer.

This doesn't make much sense. No developers have a.dev URL today, so obviously nobody associates the two that way right now. And if it's restricted to Google developers, that association is never going to be formed in the future either.

1c coin exists because there is a zinc lobby though they have agreed to a compromise which is a problem for the vending machine lobby. There is fundamentally no good reason economically and even politically this would be fixable given a less destructive congress.

The zinc lobby is a large part of the reason why the government won't make the change, but not the only one. The last time I discussed it with anyone, I was amazed at the number of seemingly rational people who were convinced that any attempt to get rid of the penny was a conspiracy to drive up prices.

Change of any sort frightens people, even over the stupidest of things.

You're arguing from a misconception, and looking like an idiot doing it. I haven't "lost" anything, because I'm not in a competition with anyone. This war that you think I'm fighting against Microsoft exists only in your own mind.

It is undeniable reality that millions of people, many of them non-technical, use a Linux desktop every day. You can make up your own definition for "year of the Linux desktop" if you like, but good luck getting everybody else to follow your lead.

I won't even throw a temper tantrum if you dare to present an alternative definition.

Wrong. The merchant's agreement says they are required to check. There's anecdotal evidence that CC companies audit merchants for compliance.

This is false. (Where are you getting your information from?) Not only are they not required to check, both Visa's and Mastercard's policies say that although the merchant may ask for ID, they cannot refuse a transaction if you refuse to show it.

Discover apparently does say that they should check alternate ID if there are any suspicions, although it doesn't require it all the time.